User Tools

Site Tools


public:t-701-rem4:research_environments

Research Environment: Grants & Scientific Authorship

Grants: Overview

Research Grant Applications: Where Do They Come From?
What Does a Grant Application Look Like?
Review Process
So I Got a Grant. What now?
So I Got a Grant. What Are My Responsibilities?
Example Grants
Scientific authorship: How to give credit





Where Grants Come From

There are more grants than you can imagine However, some are not that easy to find
EU: Cordis Focus on multi-national collaboration. Typically just under 100 pages
Iceland: RANNÍS All sizes and shapes





What a Grant Application Looks Like

It looks a lot like a conference paper! Except for a few obvious differences (such as a budget, length, and more)
Abstract of the work to be performed
Complete budget information for each of the years (usually 2-3) for which funding is sought
Complete information on each individual associated with the research
Prior work section Describes referenced previous published results of other investigators and sets the context for the contributions of the proposed work
A section with information on all related work already accomplished by the person submitting the proposal
A research plan describing the order and methodology of the proposed work, with milestones and deliverables for the entire period Must include: Predicted outcomes, pitfalls and/or possible difficulties which may be encountered, experiments/work designed to resolve these difficulties, and their predicted outcomes
Signatures of all involved
Letters approving the use of facilities etc. These depend on the nature of the research and the requirements of the particular insitution giving out the grant





Review Process

Typically done by a committee There should be at least one expert in the particular area of the application, plus some people familiar with the field
RANNÍS has 3 people reviewing each application Sometimes outside Iceland
Reviewers grade the appliaction RANNÍS: Gives each appliaciton one of three grades, Fail, Medium and High
The review is final Reviews are returned to the applicant
Duration of review process: 2-4 months





So I Got a Grant. What now?

You will sign a contract with the institution giving the grant This may include reconfirming that your budget and plan has not changed, or submittin a (small) revision of these
Once the contract has been signed by both parties you will get the first chunk of money Subsequent payments of grant will typically be incremental, based on acceptable progress reports and reached milestones





So I Got a Grant. What Are My Responsibilities?

Financial responsibility for the work
Ethical responsibility for the work, data collection, personnel involved, publications which may occur
Responsibility for publications which may be required
Use of any funds which may be awarded
Progress reports to the grant institution
Final report when work finishes





Example Grants

EU Cordis: Community Research & Development Information Service Cordis PF7 home page
RANNÍS Project Grant Example application form





Authorship

Scientific Publications: The currency of Science The scientific paper appearing in a peer-reviewed publication is the “currency” of science.
Date of publication, reception, acceptance In addition to having a particular date of publication, many journals publish the date a paper was first received by the editors, before the revies and revision process started.
Ethics - Misaccreditation (plagiarism) It is unethical to repeat verbatim from another author without proper accreditation.
It is unethical to accredit oneself with work done by others.
First author This is the main author of the paper, that is, the person who:
- is the driving force behind the work presented
- is the author of the ideas presented in the paper
- did most of the work and implementation
Ideally it is also the person who wrote most of the paper.
Reality First author is often a professor who sticks their name on every paper published by a laboratory or department or group.
Second author This is the “second person in command” for the work presented in the paper, that is whoever.
Third, fourth, fifth, etc. author Typically a list of people who did some of the work; sometimes these are also people who had a hand in the writing of the paper, but very often they are not (mostly for practical reasons)
Extremely long authorship lists Becoming increasingly common in group projects
Last author Increasingly advisors/professors are putting themselves at the end of the authors' list on papers describing the work of their students
Acknowledgment vs. author? If a person is not the authors' list (for whatever reason) but contributed something to the work, it is customary to put in a thank-you note in the Acknowledgment section





EOF

/var/www/ailab/WWW/wiki/data/pages/public/t-701-rem4/research_environments.txt · Last modified: 2008/10/27 15:30 by thorisson